Thought I'd start this thread to invite opinions on the second red in tonight's Libertadores quarter-final second leg between Palmeiras and Atlético Mineiro. If we're lucky, maybe we get some more mileage out of it. It's CONMEBOL after all! Here's the play (I'll update if I can find an even better replay): How would you handle this? Palmeiras already a man down at this point and the match at 0x0 (2x2 on aggregate, heading to PKs).
I think the question is foot to ankle contact is caused by the preceding foul. If the action is caused by the foul, then there should be no sanction. If the player does something stupid and aggressive because he’s being fouled, then it should be a FK for his team, and he still gets sent off. I lean towards the latter, but I don’t have a strong conviction.
To me that is absolutely a SFP red, however it would be a FK to his team for the initial foul that hadn't yet been called against him (if the ref planned to give it).
Here is another one. Goal not allowed. Attacking player doesn't touch ball, interfere with play, nor block GKs field of vision. Ref reviewed the play through VAR.
That's exactly what was given. I think there was some more disgruntledness with this call because of the notion that the foul played a part in the player's kick landing the way it did. In the end Palmeiras won (on PKs) despite going down to 9 men at that point so I think that switched the focus away from the call. Hard to imagine the ref could have prevented it by whistling earlier, but that was the feeling for some.
How can you say that this isn't interfering with the GK's ability to play the ball? The GK would literally have to run into the offside player to save the ball. This is 100% offside and honestly an extremely easy call. If you disagree, I don't know what to tell you. The ref definitely could have blown the whistle a second earlier, as he was being grabbed at midfield with a defender right in front of him, no real chance for advantage there. But anyway, the player got pulled, lost possession, and then lunged in with a forceful straight leg, studs into the high ankle of the opponent. It wasn't like he got tackled from behind which sent his leg into the opponent, he was in full control of his action making that lunge. A jersey pull did not make his leg do that out of his control. Whether you want to call it some sort of "revenge" for assuming he wasn't getting the foul call or not, the ref just judges what happened, not intent. Now if he had blown the whistle an instant before that lunge I believe it would still be a RC but this time for violent conduct because the ball is out of play once the whistle blows. Of course this is just my opinion.
I think the consensus here is obvious and that decision was correct. All I'd add is that I think a yellow for actual foul would both be correct (SPA) and build some credibility back. As to the idea that an earlier foul call would have prevented this behavior... aside from just laughing, I'd say that trying to play advantage there is correct AND if a player is intent on making that sort of "challenge" a whistle going half a second earlier isn't going to prevent it. Given everything else that seemed to be going on in this match, I don't think anything around this particular decision would actually have changed anything.
I think it's like 99% onside, so that's interesting. A still photo tells us nothing here. Perhaps more importantly, if a still photo could tell us something you've chosen the wrong frame. The ball is already off the foot. A still photo at the kickpoint is the only one that could possibly matter (and, even then, I'd argue you have to look at the whole video to assess any interfering with an opponent aspect). The goalkeeper can see the ball when it's shot. He reacts as quickly as he can yet he still barely starts to react physically until the ball is passing the attacker in the offside position. The attacker in the offside position does not prevent him from reacting. Also, the idea that the goalkeeper would "literally have to run into the offside player to save the ball" is detached from reality. What goalkeeper dives forward and diagonally to react and save a shot like that? He's always going to be diving laterally. He dives how he would to try to save that even if the attacker wasn't there. And if he had somehow been able to physically make it all the way to his right post in time to save the shot, he wouldn't have smashed into the attacker. We know this because he tries to make the save and doesn't come within a yard or so of physically contact the attacker in question. The attacker doesn't challenge the ball. He doesn't make an obvious action to impact the goalkeeper. He is not in the line of sight (except for a nanosecond--more on that below). There's really nothing here that gels with our instruction around interfering with an opponent. I can understand arguing this, particularly given qualified officials determined it was offside. But to say this is 100% offside and not even worth discussing? I don't understand why you'd take that position here. My one caveat here is on the line of sight issue. Technically the player in the offside position temporarily obstructs the line of sight because the ball passes him on the far side. So, if this was given on field, I would understand the hesitation in overturning it via VAR. But, practically, I go back to everything else I write above. It's a nanosecond. The shot is already off and heading into the goal at pace. The line of sight issue doesn't affect the goalkeeper's reaction time at all. If he has ANY hope of saving the shot (and, spoiler alert, he doesn't) he has to react immediately off the kickpoint itself, which makes the period where the ball passes on the far side of the attacker irrelevant.
Oh one other point... even if you think this is offside and disagree with my assessment, this is a subjective offside and not an objective offside. So, once not given on-field, the standard for overturning has to be very high. I'm frankly shocked that it was.
The shot is taken quickly and from a close distance. GK reaction with or without that offside player would be to dive straight parallel to the goal line. He does have a clear path to the ball to attempt that save. Although, he is never making to that ball in time. So I could have seen this being called a goal.
A couple more calls from Libertadores. Yellow or red ? Contact is more back of upper arm than actual elbow. Ref gave yellow and VAR was not engaged. This one I have more of problem with. No PK , no VAR engaged. Fernandinho dá um pisão em Rony dentro da área. Pênalti que deveria ser marcado a favor do Palmeiras.VAR Fail ❌ pic.twitter.com/b4QlOHcj1U— VAR Check Brazil (@VAR_Brazil) September 7, 2022
I hate these. I would give no cards and an ass chewing to both. Player 1 is being an ass. Player 2 isn't elbowing him, isn't trying to hurt him, he's saying get off me. He does not hit him with the elbow. No card need. Just an ass chewing to both.